Categories
Author: Elisenda Torras
Categories
Intervention
This first unit of the PgCert has been a fascinating and thought-provoking journey, allowing me to step back and critically engage with my teaching practice in ways I had not previously considered. The process of reading, learning, and engaging in deeper discussions about learning and teaching has made me far more conscious of the theoretical underpinnings that shape higher education pedagogy. One of the most striking realisations has been how, as lecturers, we often apply pedagogical theories instinctively in our teaching, without necessarily recognising them as established frameworks. Instead, we tend to draw from our lived experiences in the classroom and our industry practices, responding to challenges and student needs intuitively. This has reinforced for me the importance of bridging practical experience with theoretical knowledge to enhance both teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes (Griffiths & Tann, 1992).
A major theme has been the interconnectedness of pedagogical elements. While I initially explored voice and assertiveness in the classroom, my reflections naturally expanded into inclusivity, active learning, and assessment strategies. Peer learning has been a particularly enriching aspect of this unit. Engaging in discussions, sharing experiences, and providing and receiving feedback from colleagues has been invaluable. The microteaching session was a particularly insightful experience—being observed and receiving structured feedback allowed me to see my teaching through the lens of others, highlighting aspects I may have otherwise overlooked. Although my observation task was limited to reviewing a briefing deck rather than observing live teaching, the process of reflecting on teaching materials with a critical eye still provided useful insights. This experience has reinforced the importance of self-awareness and adaptability—being open to critique, refining methods, and continuously evolving in response to feedback (Race, 2001).
Another significant learning point has been around feedback and assessment. Engaging in discussions with peers has sparked new ideas about assessment methods that I am keen to explore in my own teaching. The exploration of formative and summative feedback has prompted me to think more deeply about how assessment can be used not just as a tool for evaluation but as a means to facilitate deeper learning. The idea of assessing the learning process itself has been particularly thought-provoking. Feedback should not be a one-time event but an ongoing dialogue, enabling students to develop their critical thinking and reflective capabilities (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This aligns with the principles of national professional development frameworks in higher education, which emphasise the role of constructive feedback in fostering student autonomy and engagement.
Inclusivity has also been a key theme throughout this unit. Discussions on how different learners engage with content, the importance of designing assessments that cater to diverse learning styles, and the role of accessibility in fostering an equitable learning environment have all been instrumental in shaping my reflections. These insights have made me more mindful of the small but intentional changes I can make in my own practice to ensure that all students, regardless of their background or learning preferences, feel supported and included in the learning process. Understanding intercultural competence has also played a role in this, particularly in recognising the different ways students engage with learning based on their cultural and educational backgrounds (Deardorff, 2006).
Looking ahead, I am excited to carry these reflections forward into the next phase of my PgCert journey. This first unit has provided a strong foundation, encouraging me to be more intentional about my teaching choices while continuing to experiment with different methods.
The opportunity to conceptualise my practice within the broader landscape of higher education frameworks has been invaluable, and I am keen to build on this learning as I refine my approach further. I am grateful for the rich discussions, the generosity of peers in sharing their experiences, and the thought-provoking insights that have emerged throughout this process. There is still so much to explore, and I look forward to seeing how these reflections will continue to shape my teaching practice in the long term.
References:
Deardorff, D. K. (2006) ‘Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), pp. 241-266.
Griffiths, M. and Tann, S. (1992) ‘Reflective practice – linking personal and public theories’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), pp. 69-84.
Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218.
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.
This case study explores the implementation of a mid-unit checkpoint in Unit 3: Situating Innovation within the MA Innovation Management course at CSM. It examines how structured feedback supports student progress and equitable participation in assessing and giving feedback for learning. Additionally, it aligns with the A3 (assess and give feedback for learning), A5 (enhance practice through professional development), K3 (critical evaluation for effective practice), K5 (quality assurance and enhancement), and V5 (collaborate with others to enhance practice) from the Professional Standards Framework.
Background
The Situating Innovation unit is an 11-week-long research-based unit where students develop and refine their research proposals. In the past years, despite its duration, there was no structured checkpoint for students to receive interim feedback, apart from voluntary crit sessions organized during class times. While these sessions provided valuable peer interaction, they disproportionately benefited confident students, leaving quieter or less proactive students with limited engagement and feedback opportunities.
Having successfully implemented and conducted structured checkpoints in other LCF courses, I recognized the benefits of a more inclusive and guided mid-unit feedback session. These checkpoints had proven effective in maintaining student momentum, helping staff identify common struggles, and promoting a deeper engagement with feedback and learning outcomes. Given this experience, I introduced the first-ever structured mid-unit checkpoint for MAIM to ensure all students received formative feedback, gained external perspectives, and refined their research direction before final submission.
Evaluation
The newly introduced checkpoint session was carefully structured to optimize student engagement and feedback quality:
- Mandatory participation: Unlike voluntary crits, all students were required to present their progress, ensuring broader participation.
- Cross-supervision feedback: To offer fresh insights, students were not assigned to their own supervisors but instead presented to a different faculty member.
- Small group structure: Three parallel sessions were conducted with two staff members per room, optimizing discussion time and feedback quality.
- Accountability and reflection: Each student had 10 minutes to present, which pushed them to organize their research coherently, promoting self-reflection and preparedness.
The response from students was overwhelmingly positive. They particularly appreciated:
- Hearing their peers’ progress, which helped them benchmark their own work.
- Gaining external faculty perspectives, which provided fresh, unbiased feedback.
- Being pushed to structure their work earlier, reducing last-minute stress.
From a theoretical perspective, this aligns with Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) Seven Principles of Good Feedback, particularly in clarifying performance standards, fostering self-reflection, and encouraging sustained engagement. Additionally, Race (2001) highlights the importance of structured self, peer, and group assessment in enhancing learning, reinforcing the value of this checkpoint session.
A key lesson was that mandatory participation created a more equitable learning experience. In contrast to the previous voluntary crits – where only confident students engaged – this structured format ensured all students received and acted upon constructive feedback, as emphasized by O’Donovan, Price & Rust (2004) in their work on making assessment criteria explicit and accessible.
Moving Forward
Reflecting on this intervention and incorporating insights from the PgCert discussions on crits, I identified key enhancements for future sessions:
- Structuring peer feedback within the checkpoint: While peer crits were previously optional and often dominated by confident students, I plan to formalize a peer feedback component within the checkpoint session. This structured approach will ensure all students actively engage with their peers’ work, promoting deeper critical reflection while still benefiting from staff insights.
- Optimizing session formats for deeper engagement: Some students expressed a need for more time to discuss their feedback in depth. To address this, I propose conducting the checkpoint in smaller groups over multiple days, resembling a group tutorial format. This would allow for more focused conversations and closer interaction with both peers and staff.
- Enhancing participation and inclusivity: Combining structured peer crits with faculty feedback will create a more balanced learning experience, ensuring that students who may be less confident in presenting still receive constructive input. A clear framework for guiding peer discussions will also be introduced to help students provide meaningful feedback.
- Encouraging reflection and application of feedback: Inspired by Russell (2010) on assessment patterns, I propose requiring students to reflect on and integrate checkpoint feedback into their final work. While this is not currently a formal requirement, introducing a reflective journal or structured self-assessment for longer units would help students track their intellectual and methodological development over time.
By implementing these refinements, the checkpoint session will not only provide valuable feedback but also reinforce students’ ability to assess their own work critically, engage more actively with feedback, and integrate it meaningfully into their research process.
References
Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. University of the West of England.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218.
O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), pp. 325-335.
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.
Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. University of Hertfordshire, ESCAPE project.
This post reflects on a seminar in which I was observed by a PgCert tutor, focusing on engaging students in collaborative innovation and critical thinking while facilitating rapid idea development and pitching. See the observation notes in this link.
Delivering a seminar for the MBA from LCF around Innovation and Fashion Business Futures was an enriching experience. This was my first engagement with this cohort – I will be supervising two students in their final Consultancy Project. My objective was to create a highly interactive and applied learning session that complemented the recorded lecture I shared a week before and they had previously watched. The seminar explored disruptive technologies and strategic innovation frameworks in fashion, with a particular emphasis on practical application and critical analysis.
Key Reflections on Engagement and Communication
A key priority was to foster student engagement and facilitate meaningful discussions. I sought to create an open and inclusive learning environment, encouraging students to actively participate by acknowledging their contributions and linking their insights to broader seminar themes. However, fostering critical engagement requires more than just participation – it demands the ability to challenge assumptions, question dominant narratives, and synthesise diverse perspectives.
My tutor’s observations highlighted that my communication style was effective in engaging students. By employing active listening techniques – such as non-verbal cues, backchanneling, and reinforcement through follow-up questions – I was able to establish rapport and maintain an interactive dialogue. A particular strength noted was my ability to bridge theoretical models, with real-world industry applications, ensuring that students understood both the conceptual framework and its limitations in practice.
One constructive piece of feedback was the need to manage participation dynamics, particularly in instances where a single student dominated the conversation. Ensuring equitable participation is essential, and I will adopt strategies such as redirecting questions to the group (e.g., “That’s a great question-what do others think?”) and setting clear expectations for time allocation during discussions. This also raises a broader pedagogical question: how can educators cultivate an environment where quieter voices feel empowered to contribute without the discussion being overly structured or constrained?
Refining Group Activities and Task Management
The seminar was structured around a group-based task in which students developed and pitched a future-proofing strategy for Nike. To set up the activity, I used a combination of slides and verbal explanations, incorporating structured prompts and brand imagery to provide context. While my tutor found the slides visually engaging, they also noted that certain aspects -such as font readability and colour contrast- could be improved for accessibility.
This is an important consideration, and I will be more mindful of inclusive design principles in future materials. This feedback also prompted me to reflect on whether my reliance on visual stimuli was inadvertently privileging certain learning styles over others. Would a greater integration of alternative instructional strategies, such as concept mapping or case-based debate, provide a richer learning experience?
Additionally, verbal check-ins were an effective method for gauging student understanding of the task. However, my tutor suggested incorporating a quick recap from each group to ensure clarity before students embarked on the exercise. I find this a very useful recommendation, as it provides an additional layer of confirmation and allows for the early identification of any misunderstandings. It also raises a fundamental consideration about scaffolding independent learning -how much structure should be provided to ensure comprehension while allowing space for students to take ownership of their interpretations?
Supporting Student Collaboration and Critical Thinking
Throughout the session, I actively monitored student discussions, offering guidance and prompting critical thinking through targeted questions. My tutor noted that my approach – encouraging brainstorming, suggesting mapping exercises, and ensuring time management – helped keep students focused and productive.
One key takeaway for me is the need for adaptability in managing time during interactive sessions. I made real-time adjustments, such as encouraging concise, structured pitches, to align with the time constraints. This flexibility proved effective, but it also highlighted a potential tension: in prioritising efficiency, do we risk sacrificing deeper inquiry? Encouraging students to think critically about emerging technologies requires both structure and open-ended exploration – striking this balance remains a continual challenge in my teaching practice.
Key Takeaways and Future Improvements
This seminar provided a valuable opportunity to refine my teaching practice, and I greatly appreciate my tutor’s insightful observations. Moving forward, I aim to
- Implement strategies to ensure balanced participation, such as actively inviting diverse voices into discussions while encouraging self-regulation among more vocal students.
- Enhance accessibility in my slide design by improving colour contrast and readability, while also diversifying instructional materials to cater to different learning styles.
- Introduce structured group check-ins, where students recap instructions to confirm understanding before starting their tasks, ensuring a balance between guided support and independent exploration.
- Continue to integrate industry insights with theoretical frameworks, while challenging students to critically evaluate dominant industry discourses rather than accepting them at face value.
Overall, I am pleased with how students engaged in critically assessing innovation strategies in fashion. Their discussions demonstrated a strong grasp of key concepts while highlighting the need for continuous refinement in pedagogical approaches. Additionally, this session prompted reflection on my voice – not only in terms of student participation but also as a tool to stimulate creativity and critical thinking. The way I use my voice to assert ideas, pose thought-provoking questions, and challenge students to think beyond conventional solutions is instrumental in shaping the seminar dynamic. Given the task of developing and pitching an innovative tech concept within an hour, my voice played a crucial role in guiding students through uncertainty, encouraging them to embrace rapid ideation, and instilling confidence in their creative instincts. Striking the right balance between assertiveness and encouragement ensures that students feel both challenged and supported, enabling them to articulate and refine their ideas more effectively.
I look forward to further developing my vocal delivery as a means of fostering deeper engagement and innovation in future seminars.
This post is based on an observation of a session deck rather than a face-to-face session. As such, the level of detail and insight into actual delivery, student engagement, and facilitation techniques is not present. Additionally, as I am not familiar with the broader context of this course, my ability to fully grasp the depth of this brief deck is very restricted. Therefore, the following notes focuses primarily on the clarity, structure, and alignment of the provided content with the intended learning outcomes outlined in the same deck, rather than commenting its effectiveness in real-time. See the observation notes in this link.
The Responsible Design Unit Launch session deck appears to provide a well-structured introduction to ethical, inclusive, and sustainable design principles within the BA Graphic Media Design curriculum. It seems designed to foster critical engagement, creativity, and collaboration, while introducing students to key themes such as Equity, Futures, Ethos, and Systems. The combination of interactive activities, discussions, and reflection-based tasks supports different learning styles and encourages students to critically engage with their own design practice.
However, given that this is a briefing session rather than a content-based instructional resource, this review is necessarily structural, focusing on the clarity and formatting of the slides. Without insight into how discussions unfold, how students engage, or how facilitation supports learning, the observations remain focused on the design of the deck rather than its real-time impact.
Strengths noted:
Strong alignment with learning outcomes
- The session seems to effectively transmit and include all three intended learning outcomes (Enquiry, Communication, and Process) through hands-on activities and discussions.
- The “Becoming Material” and “Collective Library” activities particularly stand out in supporting exploration, articulation of values, and iterative development, which align well with the unit’s objectives.
Engaging and interactive activities
- The “Becoming Material” activity seems to be a unique and immersive way to introduce students to materiality, prompting them to think critically about its history, usage, and implications. The role-playing aspect (first-person narrative) adds a performative and reflective layer to learning.
- The “Collective Library” activity encourages independent research and knowledge-sharing, reinforcing students’ ability to contextualize responsible design beyond their immediate experience.
Clear structure and flow
- The session appears to follow a logical progression, beginning with introductory activities (settling in and welcoming), followed by active engagement (hands-on activities, research, and mind-mapping), then unpacking the unit brief in more detail, and finally concluding with reflective learning and extended discussion.
- Time allocations appear well-considered, ensuring that activities have a clear beginning, middle, and end without feeling rushed.
Encouragement of inclusivity and open dialogue
- The Session Etiquette slide at the beginning appears to set clear expectations around active listening, supportive responding, and inclusivity, which is particularly important given the potentially sensitive topics addressed in responsible design.
- The open-ended and exploratory nature of the activities ensures that students with diverse perspectives can contribute meaningfully.
Engaging slide design
- The slides are well-structured, visually clear, and engaging, making the key information accessible and easy to follow.
- The use of visuals, concise text, and a logical sequence helps maintain clarity while reinforcing the session’s main themes.
This session appears to be well-designed with a thoughtful balance of engagement, discussion, and active learning, making responsible design accessible and stimulating for students as a briefing session.
That said, my observations remain limited due to the nature of the deck provided, which serves as a briefing session rather than a content-based lecture. A more in-depth review would require observation of the live session, student interactions, and facilitation dynamics to fully evaluate its effectiveness.
This case study addresses the importance of adapting teaching strategies to accommodate students’ diverse academic experiences, ensuring an equitable learning environment. It aligns with the Professional Standards Framework, specifically addressing A2: teaching and supporting learning through appropriate approaches and environments and V1: respecting individual learners and diverse groups of learners, while also incorporating elements of K2: approaches to teaching and supporting learning appropriate for subject and level of study.
The study is based on the Collaborative Unit run by MAIM and MAAI at CSM, and it explores how different student experiences influence teamwork and knowledge-sharing and how the application of cultural and educational theories can support more effective collaboration. Given that many UAL programmes incorporate collaborative units, discussions with colleagues across various courses and faculties confirm that these challenges are widely shared. You can check here another post related to the Collaborative Unit (Reflections on being observed by a peer: Facilitating Team Collaboration and Conflict Resolution).
Background
In today’s globalised higher education landscape, classrooms are increasingly diverse, with students bringing varied cultural and educational backgrounds that shape their approaches to learning and collaboration (Deardorff, 2006). While this diversity enhances the learning experience by introducing multiple perspectives, it also presents challenges, particularly in group work, where different understandings of collaboration, leadership, and communication can lead to misunderstandings and conflict (Meyer, 2014).
The Collaborative Unit has run for 6 weeks and one key challenge identified at the very beginning of the project was that students experienced frustration and difficulty progressing with their teamwork due to misaligned expectations and differing approaches to academic work. Many struggled to understand how their peers structured tasks, made decisions, and engaged in collaborative problem-solving, leading to inefficiencies and tensions within the group. This aligns with findings from Hofstede (2001), who emphasised that educational expectations vary significantly across cultures due to differing levels of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance. In our observed case, some students were highly familiar with independent research and self-directed learning, while others were engaging with structured academic inquiry in a group setting for the first time.
Evaluation
To address these challenges and foster a more inclusive learning environment, we introduced Erin Meyer’s Cultural Map framework, a widely recognised model that highlights how cultures differ across dimensions such as communication style, decision-making, and attitudes towards confrontation (Meyer, 2014). By mapping themselves and their peers within this framework, students gained deeper insights into their own collaborative styles and recognised that tensions often stemmed from cultural predispositions rather than personal shortcomings.
In parallel, Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory was introduced to provide further context on how different cultures approach learning and collaboration. For example, students from collectivist cultures, where group harmony is prioritised, initially hesitated to assert their perspectives, whereas students from more individualist cultures were accustomed to voicing their opinions assertively (Hofstede, 2001). This discrepancy created initial communication barriers, reinforcing the importance of explicitly addressing these dynamics in an academic setting.
Through these frameworks, students were able to identify the root causes of their frustrations, acknowledge the influence of cultural differences, and develop strategies for effective collaboration. Moreover, by discussing conflict moderation techniques such as assertive communication, students gained the confidence to express their perspectives in a constructive manner, eliminating any unspoken tensions or “elephants in the room” (Deardorff, 2009).
The integration of cultural mapping tools significantly enhanced students’ ability to collaborate effectively. In their final presentations, students demonstrated a remarkable level of self-awareness by mapping each group member’s position within the Cultural Map framework, illustrating how their diverse backgrounds contributed to the group’s collective learning process, and how the differences enhanced the final submission. This exercise not only improved teamwork dynamics but also fostered a sense of inclusivity, empowering students to articulate their ideas assertively and respectfully (Deardorff, 2009).
Moving forward
To foster more effective collaboration in diverse learning environments, I aim to embed cultural competence awareness into the curriculum, by including some of the following:
- Workshops on intercultural communication, providing students with practical tools to navigate diverse teams effectively (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009).
- Reflective exercises on personal biases and cultural expectations in learning environments (Gudykunst, 2004).
- Ongoing use of cultural frameworks such as Meyer’s Cultural Map and Hofstede’s dimensions to ensure that students develop the skills necessary for global collaboration.
These strategies equip students with the awareness and adaptability needed to engage effectively in diverse professional and academic environments, preparing them for the complexities of an interconnected world (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2010).
References
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: PublicAffairs.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan.